Wikipedia includes the margin of victory for a liberal politician, but omits or downplays the margin of defeat for the same politician. For example, Alan Mollohan lost in his own primary by 56-44% after voting for Obamacare, but Wikipedia's entry about him includes only his margins of victory in prior elections. The margin of defeat for liberal Gordon Brown is obscured in his Wikipedia entry also.

Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate obscenity instead of education. The vulgar swear word referring to sex, F---, is mentioned in nearly 7,000 articles. [4] Most recently, it is used in an article about Republican Senate candidate Michael Baumgartner when the article's sources did not spell out that word.[7]

Wikipedia does its best to cover-up crimes and lewd behavior coming from left leaning Occupy Wall Street crowd. Assault emphasized, rape is minimized by the terms omission. Rape is not used in the article and can only be found in a reference title at the end of the page. [8]

Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that Jared Loughner, like many Wikipedia editors, is an atheist, and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a nihilist, an extreme form of atheism.[9]

A Wikipedia editor named "Pensacolian" inserted false information about Judge Roger Vinson, claiming he was a bear hunter who mounted several of his trophy bear heads above his courtroom door. Rush Limbaugh repeated the claims on his radio show, compelling the Judge to issue a statement denying the falsehoods. [5]

Wikipedia's article on engineering[10] features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient liberal boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the United States because they are not competitive.

In his article entitled Wikipedia lies, slander continue, journalistJoseph Farah supports his observation that Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."[11]

Wikipedia's entry on Gardasil, an HPV Vaccine promoted by liberals and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"[12] (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 cause about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.[13]

If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.[14]

Here's another example of why Wikipedia is declining: it locked its entry about Richard Dawkins to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.[16] Perhaps the atheists on Wikipedia don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.

Wikipedia's entry on Peter Singer downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were removed as being "POV",[17] despite appearing in the like-minded New York Times.[18] A week after this criticism,[19] an editor restored the former quote.[20]

Predictably, Wikipedia insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.[21] In characteristic fashion, Wikipedia misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to demonize them. Also in Wikipedia-style, it quotes liberal newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by National Review).

Wikipedia allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.[22] But within hours liberals on Wikipedia completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about Hollywood Values, in order to censor examples of how the liberal ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".[23] After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."[24]

As far as Richard Dawkins title of professor while at Oxford, Wikipedia fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".[25] Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.[26]

Wikipedia's entry on the Prodigal Son devotes more words to obscure rock band and liberal media references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.[27]

Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to Michael Moore, whose official website published attacks on a Wikipedia editor with an open invitation to vandalize WikipediaMichael_Moore and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's propaganda. Even that which supports my own position." [6] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [7]Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder Jimbo Wales allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[8]_note-0 The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservativethink tank."[9]

Wikipedia heavily promotes liberals in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on Boy Scouts v. Dale, a conservativeSupreme Court decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"[28]Wikipedia eventually removed that liberal promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.[29]

Wikipedia welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly liberal. Credible wikis, including Conservapedia, do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.

Wikipedia, its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and deceit, features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".[32] The word "deceit" has no entry on Wikipedia. It was redirected to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.[33] Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on deceit here.

Wikipedia promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the sanctity of life). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,[34] and Wikipedia's entry about Zerah Colburn ended with a claim that his distant nephew committed suicide.[35][36] After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); the Colburn suicide is still there as of July 7, 2012. There has been no system-wide removal of this bias on Wikipedia. In yet another example, Wikipedia has an entry for "suicide by cop"[37] to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.

Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"[43] How about a new slogan: Wikipedia: well, duh!

Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."[44] "A worldwide view" is fictional liberal terminology for globalists.

Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.[45]

Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[46] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[47] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.[48] See also liberal quotient.

One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing Wikipedia statistics. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.[49]

Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.[50]

Wikipedia's entry for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.[51] The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another liberal journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!

There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."[52] The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of deism by Benjamin Franklin by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the Constitutional Convention for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,[53] an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of Pilgrim's Progress in his autobiography.

Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."[54] That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.

Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry Criticism of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[55] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about Indentured Servitude is massive, but it omitted any reference to Bacon's Rebellion, which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."[56]

Wikipedia's article on Feudalism is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.[57]

Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on Henry Liddell illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.[58] That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.[59]

Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the Encyclopedia Britannica, wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:

"One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."[60]

I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.

I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.

They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.

In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.

Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:[62]

"I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.[63] Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]

Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist John Lawrence Seigenthaler was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in USA Today, concluding with the following:[64]

When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."

What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthalerafterwards on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:[65]

"Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."

The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."[66]

Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the Daily News relied on it in this story:

"You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.

Wikipedia's article on Jeremiah Wright repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.

Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.[74] Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".[75][76]

The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for EvoWiki. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puerile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.[77]

Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.[78] Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', President Bush launched the War on Terrorism", "President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq" and "which President Bush viewed as..."'No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.

Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? [79]

Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a liberal anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the Communist North Vietnam. [10][11]

Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [12]

In relation to the Wikipedia article on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Wikipedia mentions terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic countries, imams and Taliban but nowhere will you find the word "Muslim terrorist" nor "Islamic terrorist". [13] That is a key point that liberals want to hide from the public. [14] The very same can be said for Wikipedia's wikinews item Failed bomb aboard Delta flight article. [15]

Wikipedia will zealously guard what is said about liberal politicians. But any smear or false accusation of conservative politicians is immediately promoted on their pages as guilty. As is the case with John Edwards. His scandal was known for over a year, since 2007, before the mainstream media decided to cover it. Wikipedia claims in their article "Mainstream media in the United States have chosen not to report this incident, or the allegations that led to it, which Edwards has previously denied." Yet, they did not mention that repeated attempts to add that information was removed by Wikipedia prior to July 28, 2008. [16] In addition, many criticisms of Edwards have not made it into Wikipedia such as he used well-wishes to Elizabeth regarding her re-occurrence of cancer to solicit email donations to his Presidential campaign.

Although against their own policy Wikipedia allows Liberals such as voiceover actor D. C. Douglas, who under the name of Lance Baxter, called Freedonworks and referred to their workers and supporters as "mentally retarded," and asked what happens after one of their "members does actually kill somebody." A sys-op "protected" the page deleting any mention of Douglas' controversial actions and statements. [80]

Wikipedia has an unexplainable love for supporting Irish liberals and almost completely ignoring Northern Irish conservatives by calling Londonderry by it's unofficial slang name "derry"[81] and by marginalizing the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland by claiming it's "unofficial" and often calling it derogatory names such as "sectarian rag" which go unpunished[82]. Unlike Conservapedia which always use the correct names for things and does not tolorate any derogetary liberal hatred or cave into peer pressure.

The liberal mobocracy fails to understand what the Tea Party Movement is all about. Wikipedia attempts to smear the Tea Party Nation by claiming the organization "actively censors political speech", without providing any references to backup the claim. [17]

Wikipedia reveals in its article "CIA activities in Iran" that "Khomeini's coup was engineered by Britain to get a better oil contract renewal and by the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment....these two resourceful parties were able to direct the CIA in this task while keeping President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives."[83] Although largely harmless in its embrace of similar pseudoscience and hysteria (Saddam, Khomeini, and Osama have all "allegedly" been CIA agents since their early twenties, according to Wikipedia's fringe articles--the really obscure ones apparently evade the notice of 90% of its editors); it is worth noting that in this particular instance, repeated attempts to remove the offending content have been made and rejected, on the grounds that the assertions are "well-sourced info."[84] Beware, ladies and gentlemen, of what you may uncover when plumbing the seemingly endless depths of Wikipedia's inanity.

Wikipedia's "Fall of Saigon" article states that "according to the Hanoi government, more than 200,000 South Vietnamese government officials, military officers, and soldiers were sent to reeducation camps."[85] According to independent sources, the actual number was well in excess of one million.[86]

Wikipedia lies by omission: "In the North, thousands of landowners were murdered by the communists and famine broke out in the 1950s. In the South, Diem went about crushing all opposition and tens of thousands were jailed or killed; dissidents were routinely labelled as communists even if they were anti-communist." In fact, there were only 30,000 prisoners of all kinds in South Vietnam;[87] several hundred thousand were killed in North Vietnam in the fifties.[88]

Wikipedia's "Communism in Vietnam" contains the following sentence: "Unlike the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese Communists did not commit a "blood bath" [after 1975]."[89] In fact, they killed 400,000 to 2.5 million South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians after the fall of Saigon.[90]

Wikipedia also makes the following claim: "in January 1980 the US started funding Pol Pot while he was in exile."[91] The source is John Pilger, who had to pay "very serious" libel damages for promulgating the fantasy;[92] the US-backed rebels of Son Sann engaged in extensive fighting with the Khmer Rouge.[93]

Wikipedia refers to the "freely elected" Arbenz regime in Guatemala being unjustly overthrown by the CIA;[94] Guatemala's official 1999 truth commission confirms that Arbenz actually murdered hundreds of his opponents.[95]

Wikipedia notes that: "the Contras form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping.""[96] However, attempts to mention Sandinista human rights violations were dismissed as "irrelevant allegations,"[97] even though they killed exponentially more people.[98]

Wikipedia's George W. Bush article says: "Those invasions led to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as well as the deaths of many Iraqis, with surveys indicating between four hundred thousand to over one million dead, excluding the tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan."[99] In reality, based on the findings of Iraqi hospitals and morgues, the Iraqi government estimates that 150,000 Iraqis died in the war, with only 1-2% of those deaths being at the hands of US troops, and the rest by the insurgency they were combating.[100] The American army in Iraq has taken three times as many casualties as it has inflicted on Iraqi civilians in collateral damage.[101] Although Wikipedia may insist that these numbers are there only to help unbiased viewers consider the Bush legacy, there is no mention of the fact that the US invasion of Afghanistan saved millions of Afghans from starvation,[102][103] or that the lives of 112,000 Afghan children and 7,500 pregnant Afghan women have been saved every year since due to improved healthcare resulting from the invasion (by UNICEF figures).[104]

A Wikipedia administrator that obsessively edits all article pertaining to the Indochina wars--"YellowMonkey"--is a Vietnamese admirer of Ho Chi Minh who emblazons his user page with a hammer and sickle as well as Communist slogans in Vietnamese.[105] He sends warnings such as "Kissinger supporter on the loose" to other editors whenever accurately sourced data is inserted into an article.[106]

Take a look at the WP article for the John Birch Society and associated discussion page on Wikipedia, regarding the labeling of the JBS as being "radical right-wing". Any attempts to remove "radical" are quickly reverted by the liberal gatekeepers, and the editor warned or banned. Now take a look at the article for Code Pink--considered by many as "radical left-wing". Any attempts to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned or chastised by liberal watchdogs. So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe a left-wing group that has used radical tactics.[107][108] The issue seems to be because there is an descriptive article where liberal gatekeepers are responsible for "defining" what "radical right-wing" means, but not a matching one that has been successfully created for "radical left-wing", where Code Pink would likely fall. There is only a more tame "far-left" to use, which stops short of radical left-wing tactics.

For a time, a search for the Watergate informant Deep Throat would take a viewer directly to the article about the pornographic film of the same name. Included in this article were explicit images related to the film. A reader needed to click the link at the top of the article to be taken to the page about the whistleblower. However, this has since been changed and "Deep Throat" takes a reader to the historical figure's article with a link to the film.

Many Wikipedia editors regard it as just a big online game with very complicated rules. So much so that as a fundraising project, they are designing a card game where the players will win "centijimbos" points. The card game rules continue to be debated.[109]

Wikipedia has a page called American war crimes, which is an article that accuses American soldiers and is seething with anti-American hatred and prejudice, as is often seen in the war crimes by country categories on Wikipedia.[[18]] and places the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the category of "American war crimes" even though it saved thousands of American and Japanese lives and the Japanese would just not simply have surrendered if the US hadn't done so, the fanatical Japanese would have fought on the death. This act is despicably labeled as a war crime by the editors of Wikipedia and their far-left "historians" who blatant anti-American propaganda passed off as scholarship. when other people were bombing cities like the Japanese were. It does not place the bombings of Shanghai and Nanking in the categories of "Japanese war crimes" which they were bombing innocent civilians. Wikipedia shows its selective outrage of "American war crimes" and uses these war crimes categories to carry prejudice and hate towards other countries by accusing them of war crimes.[110]

Liberals loathe patriotism and nationalism and sense of deep national identity and this is evident in this article. This article is typical left-wing contempt for people that have a deep belief in their country by labeling it as a myth and propaganda, reflecting the self-hatred of their own country by many on the far-left and the academic far-left Marxist scholars hatred for nation-states and people's sense of identity. Wikipedia does its utmost to bash patriotism and nationalism by labeling the ideas of nationalism and nationalism as based on pseudo myths, but says nothing about the Communist Marxist ideology being a "myth" of the lower classes rising against the upper classes or the many myths in Communism. Wikipedia presents these scholars as "truth tellers" Communist tinted historiography is presented as factual, whereas historiography that has a deep love of country, written to convey a sense of identity and beliefs in their country as a love of their own identity and shares a deep sense of history for their nation, is presented as "pseudohistory" "propaganda" "lies" and mythology written as national myths. Liberals use this to bash our nation's founding principles. The bias is pervasive enough to label people's patriotic beliefs as "national myths." in this article.[19] it this article, it labels a nation's beliefs about liberation from colonialism as mythology based on lies and propaganda. Wikipedia articles like these advanced by left-wing anti-patriotic anti-nation state academics are common on the site. Wikipedia articles label patriotism and belief in one's culture as a myth and propaganda, which it's not. The national myths article is an outright bashing of people's patriotic beliefs in their own nation, with the pejorative label of "myth" and Wikipedia presents history that has a love of country and love of people written in it as "mythology" and "myth-making" and "propaganda" which it is not. Wikipedia's obvious contempt for patriotism and national identity is rampant throughout the site. Even insulting the ideas of nation-states to promote their pseudo-intellectualism.

Wikipedia labels deep belief in one's country and history that expresses a love of that country and proud of its identity as lies, propaganda, and mythology concocted by liars and presents national belief in one's identity as "propaganda" and blatantly mocks it. Reflecting the obvious liberal hatred of patriotism and nationalism by many Wikipedia editors. This is typical left-wing hatred of people's identities as part of the Marxist agenda to discredit patriotism and unite everyone under a socialist banner by undermining a nation's deep love of itself and patriotism, by labeling it with the pejorative term of "myth" and labeling it to propaganda to promote their agenda.[111]

The Wikipedia article on Philip Roth's novel The Human Stain[112] mistakenly stated that the book was based on the real-life story of Anatole Broyard, an author and book critic who was of mixed race but identified as being white. Roth denied that this was true and had his representative request that Wikipedia correct the mistake. In response, a Wikipedia administrator said, "I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work… but we require secondary sources." Roth posted his complaint on the New Yorker Magazine website.[113] Using that as a source, Wikipedia corrected the error.[114][115]

Although Wikipedia is supposed to avoid making subjective, normative judgments, editors frequently paint over criticisms or controversies by rewriting sentences replacing less flattering adjectives with the word "popular."[116][117][118] When a Wikipedia editor writes that something is popular, he means that he personally likes it rather than reporting on some public opinion survey.

Given the cult-like nature of the Wikipedia editing corps, direct criticism of Wikipedia on its own pages is difficult. In 2010, a documentary film "Truth in Numbers?" depicted Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia and its many problems. The Wikipedia article covering the film,[119] was repeatedly vandalized and nominated for deletion five different times.[120]

A group of editors created a Wikipedia article with the title "List of Wikipedia controversies" which collected various problems in chronological order. Wikipedia administrators tried to delete the article and failed and then took the article to Deletion Review without success. Administrator Prioryman then classified the article as being within the scope of WikiProject Scientology, so that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions would apply to it.[122] Prioryman then resisted removal of the designation.[123][124]

↑In addition to the Fox News report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[2]

↑"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, such that no liberals would equate to zero liberal bias. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for liberals to conservatives.

↑Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[3]